scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Do the names Franco, Pinochet, Galtieri, Mobuto, Duvalier, Somoza and Straussner ring a bell? All right wing (fascist) dictators who murdered their own countrymen at will. They were just as bad as the left wing dictators the right denounces. The only difference? They were supposedly "allies" (and some were put into office by the US). A dictator is a dictator, right or left. We should not be supporting ANY of them. I don't care if they are our "allies" or not. We in the west cannot sit and smuggly talk about the "lack of human rights in socialist dictatorships" while turning a blind eye to what right wing dictators do. The word for that is "hypocrites". Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
ToadBrother Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Do the names Franco, Pinochet, Galtieri, Mobuto, Duvalier, Somoza and Straussner ring a bell? All right wing (fascist) dictators who murdered their own countrymen at will. They were just as bad as the left wing dictators the right denounces. The only difference? They were supposedly "allies" (and some were put into office by the US). A dictator is a dictator, right or left. We should not be supporting ANY of them. I don't care if they are our "allies" or not. We in the west cannot sit and smuggly talk about the "lack of human rights in socialist dictatorships" while turning a blind eye to what right wing dictators do. The word for that is "hypocrites". Let's not forget here that the reapproachment with Gaddafi happened under Bush's tenure. Everyone was quite thrilled, including Washington, that the Colonel had turned over a new leaf (I even recall that phrase being used as part of his rehabilitation) and was now going to be co-operating with Western inspectors. He was just as brutal to his own people five or six years ago as he had been five or six years before that, but because of the oil wealth, suddenly Western diplomats and even some Western leaders (notably Blair, Bush's best errand boy) were suddenly rushing to the door of his tent. I will give our Tory government a thumbs up over that one, that when Gaddafi was flying back and wanted a wee bit of a visit to Canada, Lawrence Cannon promised to meet him at the airport with a list of grievances. Canada, at least, wasn't willing to forget the kind of man Gaddafi really is, instead of sainting him some sort of Lion of Africa. Quote
scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Posted February 21, 2011 Let's not forget here that the reapproachment with Gaddafi happened under Bush's tenure. Everyone was quite thrilled, including Washington, that the Colonel had turned over a new leaf (I even recall that phrase being used as part of his rehabilitation) and was now going to be co-operating with Western inspectors. He was just as brutal to his own people five or six years ago as he had been five or six years before that, but because of the oil wealth, suddenly Western diplomats and even some Western leaders (notably Blair, Bush's best errand boy) were suddenly rushing to the door of his tent. I will give our Tory government a thumbs up over that one, that when Gaddafi was flying back and wanted a wee bit of a visit to Canada, Lawrence Cannon promised to meet him at the airport with a list of grievances. Canada, at least, wasn't willing to forget the kind of man Gaddafi really is, instead of sainting him some sort of Lion of Africa. Ah, but don't forget, Ol' Ghaddafi has OIL, and that makes him a hero to many in American politics. Remember the line, "It is Unamerican to criticise an oil company"? As long as that oil is being sold to the US, the ruler can do as they please (except Chavez who is "an evil socialist dictator"). Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
wyly Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Ah, but don't forget, Ol' Ghaddafi has OIL, and that makes him a hero to many in American politics. Remember the line, "It is Unamerican to criticise an oil company"? As long as that oil is being sold to the US, the ruler can do as they please (except Chavez who is "an evil socialist dictator"). and no explanation as to how Chavez can be a dictator and fairly elected at the same time... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Ah, but don't forget, Ol' Ghaddafi has OIL, and that makes him a hero to many in American politics. Remember the line, "It is Unamerican to criticise an oil company"? As long as that oil is being sold to the US, the ruler can do as they please (except Chavez who is "an evil socialist dictator"). Except for the fact that only 5% of Libyan oil goes to the United States as of 2009 (source EIA). Most of it goes to Europe. The Americans are interested in total global supply without disruption, because many nations are part of the global hydrocarbon economy, and that includes imports to Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Posted February 21, 2011 and no explanation as to how Chavez can be a dictator and fairly elected at the same time... he is a "dictator" because he doesn't let the US push him around. That is evil, ya know. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
ToadBrother Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) he is a "dictator" because he doesn't let the US push him around. That is evil, ya know. He's what you might call a populist autocrat, sort of like Putin in Russia. Popular, yes, but still with heavily autocratic leanings. Not all those with dictatorial tendencies have been unpopular. Julius Caesar was very popular with the Roman people, even if some believed him to be a threat to the Roman Republic. Edited February 21, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Posted February 21, 2011 He's what you might call a populist autocrat, sort of like Putin in Russia. Popular, yes, but still with heavily autocratic leanings. Not all those with dictatorial tendencies have been unpopular. Julius Caesar was very popular with the Roman people, even if some believed him to be a threat to the Roman Republic. Don't get me wrong. I have as little use for Chavez as I do any autocrat or dictator. However, the way I see it is simple: If Chavez came out and said, "I want the US to interfere in Venezuelan politics", he would go from "dictator" to hero overnight. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Don't get me wrong. I have as little use for Chavez as I do any autocrat or dictator. However, the way I see it is simple: If Chavez came out and said, "I want the US to interfere in Venezuelan politics", he would go from "dictator" to hero overnight. Can you prove that ridiculous statement? Quote
scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Posted February 21, 2011 Can you prove that ridiculous statement? Look at who the US called "hero". Pinochet. A man put in power by the US, and a US toady. If he has spoken out against US involvement in Chile, he would have been called "tyrant". It is all politics. "Support us, and we will support you. Don't support us, and we will denounce you." It is nothing new. It has happened since politics began. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Look at who the US called "hero". Pinochet. A man put in power by the US, and a US toady. If he has spoken out against US involvement in Chile, he would have been called "tyrant". It is all politics. "Support us, and we will support you. Don't support us, and we will denounce you." It is nothing new. It has happened since politics began. Correct...that's why Canada helped to overthrow the democratically elected president of Haiti (Aristide). It is nothing new. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) It's the same way leftists refuse to denounce people like Castro. Instead they make movies praising him. Same with Chavez. The guy can stomp all over freedom and liberty, change the constitution so that he can serve forever, and actually rule by decree. All at the same time shutting down opposing television and radio stations while running a television station of his own, spewing Chavez propaganda 24/7. And he's championed by our leftist lemmings! Edited February 21, 2011 by Shady Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 It's the same way leftists refuse to denounce people like Castro. Instead they make movies praising him. Same with Chavez. The guy can stomp all over freedom and liberty, change the constitution so that he can serve forever, and actually rule by decree. All at the same time shutting down opposing television and radio stations while running a television station of his own, spewing Chavez propaganda 24/7. And he's championed by our leftist lemmings! There's a difference between championing Castro and saying he was better than Batista. The right wing dictators were excused by rightists because they were saving us from Soviet missiles. Now that everybody loves democracy, we're all forgetting how we used to pick the "least worst" dictator regularly. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
scouterjim Posted February 21, 2011 Author Report Posted February 21, 2011 Correct...that's why Canada helped to overthrow the democratically elected president of Haiti (Aristide). It is nothing new. As I said, it is nothing new. All major nations are guilty of this. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Shady Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 There's a difference between championing Castro and saying he was better than Batista. He was better than Batista? Anyhow, that's not what they say. They make movies championing them. Have you seen the movie Sicko? The movie according to WikiLeaks the Cuban government banned because of a fear of outrage? Or the sickening fluff piece movie in Che? It's disgusting. Or the pass the old Soviet Union gets by leftists on a consistent basis. This thread is a complete joke. It's a one-sided, pure partisan view of this type of behavior. The right wing dictators were excused by rightists because they were saving us from Soviet missiles. I would characterize it as tolerated as oppose to excused. Now that everybody loves democracy, we're all forgetting how we used to pick the "least worst" dictator regularly. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only best option available. Mubarak was tolerated and supported by the West because he kept his word regarding the peace deal with Israel, whcih prevented a full scale war in the Middle East. Quote
wyly Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) There's a difference between championing Castro and saying he was better than Batista. The right wing dictators were excused by rightists because they were saving us from Soviet missiles. Now that everybody loves democracy, we're all forgetting how we used to pick the "least worst" dictator regularly. Castro he was markedly better than Batista... the difference is vast, Cuba went from 7% literacy to 99.8% literacy(canada 99%)...3 medical schools to 23...all levels of education are free...and then you have to ask why do socialist states become dictatorships? because the western powers namely the USA left them little choice...cuba was in self defense mode and when that happens civil liberties are curtailed as they are during any war...in canada we call it The War measures Act...Cuba went through the bay of pigs, numerous assassination attempts/plots on the leadership, isolationism designed to destroy their new gains...you only have to recall the security paranoia that gripped the USA after 911 to understand the threat cubans felt after the bay of pigs... the soviet union and the cold war was also largely a creation of western policy...the USA, UK, france and Canada invaded the soviet union in attempt to defeat the communist movement... Churchill's words, "to strangle at birth the Bolshevik State" ...is it any wonder the socialist distrusted the west and resulted in a permanent state of dictatorship, to lose was would have led to the death of many at the hands of the white russian forces...then there was WW2 and another rightwing government (nazis) intending to do them in...then came the cold war with the US...the entire history of the soviet union was from their perspective one of survival in a hostile world of rightwing aggression, it should be no surprise they never progressed out of totalitarian state it was constantly on a war footing... Edited February 22, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 ...then there was WW2 and another rightwing government (nazis) intending to do them in...then came the cold war with the US...the entire history of the soviet union was from their perspective one of survival in a hostile world of rightwing aggression, it should be no surprise they never progressed out of totalitarian state it was constantly on a war footing... Yet the Americans managed to do both...guns and butter. The former Soviet Union couldn't. It no longer exists. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Castro he was markedly better than Batista... the difference is vast, Cuba went from 7% literacy to 99.8% literacy(canada 99%)...3 medical schools to 23...all levels of education are free... and then you have to ask why do socialist states become dictatorships? because the western powers namely the USA left them little choice...cuba was in self defense mode and when that happens civil liberties are curtailed as they are during any war...in canada we call it The War measures Act...Cuba went through the bay of pigs, numerous assassination attempts/plots on the leadership, isolationism designed to destroy their new gains...you only have to recall the security paranoia that gripped the USA after 911 to understand the threat cubans felt after the bay of pigs... the soviet union and the cold war was also largely a creation of western policy...the USA, UK, france and Canada invaded the soviet union in attempt to defeat the communist movement... Churchill's words, "to strangle at birth the Bolshevik State" ...is it any wonder the socialist distrusted the west and resulted in a permanent state of dictatorship, to lose was would have led to the death of many at the hands of the white russian forces...then there was WW2 and another rightwing government (nazis) intending to do them in...then came the cold war with the US...the entire history of the soviet union was from their perspective one of survival in a hostile world of rightwing aggression, it should be no surprise they never progressed out of totalitarian state it was constantly on a war footing... Erm... Marxists are always violent and totalitarian. The Russian version of Marxism was directed by elitist cowards like Leon Trotsky,Vladimir Lennin,and,Petr Kropotkin... They were,and are never about,the welfare of the "common man"... As I understand it,there are 3 phases to the "revolution" that Marx talked about.. 1.The violent overthrow of the "bourgoisie" and the "petit bourgoisie"... 2.A dictatorial phase to bring about order out of the revolutionary chaos... 3.The final "workers paradise" where "equality" reigns... Of course,this is the abject naivity of Marxism on display because it never takes in to account the very human traits of greed and the lust for power...And how those things can be exploited by those this particular system was theoretically designed to prevent. Have you ever wondered why Marxism never gets past phase 2? Edited February 22, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
wyly Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Erm... Marxists are always violent and totalitarian. The Russian version of Marxism was directed by elitist cowards like Leon Trotsky,Vladimir Lennin,and,Petr Kropotkin... They were,and are never about,the welfare of the "common man"... As I understand it,there are 3 phases to the "revolution" that Marx talked about.. 1.The violent overthrow of the "bourgoisie" and the "petit bourgoisie"... 2.A dictatorial phase to bring about order out of the revolutionary chaos... 3.The final "workers paradise" where "equality" reigns... Of course,this is the abject naivity of Marxism on display because it never takes in to account the very human traits of greed and the lust for power...And how those things can be exploited by those this particular system was theoretically designed to prevent. wasn't it you who claimed to be a student of history??? what happened to those who opposed the Czar's regime?? Czarist russia was a dictatorship/police state...as in Libya now Czarist russia wasn't going without bloodshed and for the people living a life in perpetual serfdom the only answer was to fight for their freedom...once that fight begins the loser dies, losing was not an option, bloodshed is inevitable...the irony in all this the USA under conditions far better than what the russian serfs were living had it's revolution vs an oppressive colonial master that they're very proud of...that was all very heroic and glorious hazaa!... but for some reason they can't get their heads around the concept and others have that same right not to live in a dictatorship and fight for it if need be...Have you ever wondered why Marxism never gets past phase 2?I do wonder about your reading comprehension I laid that out quite clearly... Edited February 22, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) wasn't it you who claimed to be a student of history??? what happened to those who opposed the Czar's regime?? Czarist russia was a dictatorship/police state...as in Libya now Czarist russia wasn't going without bloodshed and for the people living a life in perpetual serfdom the only answer was to fight for their freedom...once that fight begins the loser dies, losing was not an option, bloodshed is inevitable...the irony in all this the USA under conditions far better than what the russian serfs were living had it's revolution vs an oppressive colonial master that they're very proud of...that was all very heroic and glorious hazaa!... but for some reason they can't get their heads around the concept and others have that same right not to live in a dictatorship and fight for it if need be... I do wonder about your reading comprehension I laid that out quite clearly... Thanks for the update on Czar Nicholas.. How does this justify the Holodomor??? Could you explain this quote... "A famine would be better...It would turn the people away from God and towards me." Vladimir Lennin... Explain the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact???Explain why Stalin wanted to better understand the NAZI methods of "getting rid of undesireables"? How does this "outside agression" justify the man made famine in Ethiopia under Col.Mengistu? How does this "outside agression" explain Mao Tse Tung's "Great Leap Forward" (approximately 14 million died,many starved,because of that)? The Cultural Revolution? How does outside agression explain Pol Pot's murderous rampage on his own people? More "outside interference"??? Now I understand... You feel the "dictatorial phase" is brought on by an insular fear of being attacked from the outside... I call B.S. Marxists are Totalitarian/Authoritarian...The kill ALL who oppose them...In every historical instance... "Outside interference" is an excuse...And a feeble one at that! Edited February 22, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 the soviet union and the cold war was also largely a creation of western policy...the USA, UK, france and Canada invaded the soviet union in attempt to defeat the communist movement... Churchill's words, "to strangle at birth the Bolshevik State" ...is it any wonder the socialist distrusted the west and resulted in a permanent state of dictatorship, to lose was would have led to the death of many at the hands of the white russian forces...then there was WW2 and another rightwing government (nazis) intending to do them in...then came the cold war with the US...the entire history of the soviet union was from their perspective one of survival in a hostile world of rightwing aggression, it should be no surprise they never progressed out of totalitarian state it was constantly on a war footing... You're mixing two entirely different eras. The Cold War was hardly triggered by the West, it was Stalin who wanted to build a bulwark of friendly states between the USSR and anyone who might want to invade like the Nazis had (though for a complete story, let's remember that Stalin seemed to have no problem selling the Germans steel right up until the morning of the invasion). Your version of history leaves out so many pieces that it becomes outright false. I don't know about you, but I damned glad the Cold War was fought. I would not want to have lived under a Stalinist, or almost as bad, post-Stalinist Communist state, would you? Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 You're mixing two entirely different eras. The Cold War was hardly triggered by the West, it was Stalin who wanted to build a bulwark of friendly states between the USSR and anyone who might want to invade like the Nazis had (though for a complete story, let's remember that Stalin seemed to have no problem selling the Germans steel right up until the morning of the invasion). Your version of history leaves out so many pieces that it becomes outright false. I don't know about you, but I damned glad the Cold War was fought. I would not want to have lived under a Stalinist, or almost as bad, post-Stalinist Communist state, would you? You mean you're not a fan of Brezhnev's eyebrows??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 wasn't it you who claimed to be a student of history??? what happened to those who opposed the Czar's regime?? Czarist russia was a dictatorship/police state...as in Libya now Czarist russia wasn't going without bloodshed and for the people living a life in perpetual serfdom the only answer was to fight for their freedom...once that fight begins the loser dies, losing was not an option, bloodshed is inevitable...the irony in all this the USA under conditions far better than what the russian serfs were living had it's revolution vs an oppressive colonial master that they're very proud of...that was all very heroic and glorious hazaa!... but for some reason they can't get their heads around the concept and others have that same right not to live in a dictatorship and fight for it if need be... And what is it that the Russian Revolution bought the Russian people? A police state, that even in Lenin's time, was growing to the point of putting anything the Czarist regime could have dreamed of to shame. The real failure of Czarist Russia wasn't the police state, it was the fact that the Romanovs became an inept dynasty, humiliated at every turn since the Crimean War, unable to respond in any kind of sensible strategic way to foreign and domestic problems. The final nail in the coffin was Nicholas II's disastrous attempt to manage the war with Germany. I'm fairly certain that if someone like Peter the Great or Catherine the Great had been in charge during the late 19th and first decade of the 20th century, regardless of how nasty the regime was to the agricultural classes (and the regime had been nasty to them for centuries, even when the Muscovite princes ran the country for the Tatars). The revolution happened because the last Romanovs were, quite simply, halfwits. Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 And what is it that the Russian Revolution bought the Russian people? A police state, that even in Lenin's time, was growing to the point of putting anything the Czarist regime could have dreamed of to shame. The real failure of Czarist Russia wasn't the police state, it was the fact that the Romanovs became an inept dynasty, humiliated at every turn since the Crimean War, unable to respond in any kind of sensible strategic way to foreign and domestic problems. The final nail in the coffin was Nicholas II's disastrous attempt to manage the war with Germany. I'm fairly certain that if someone like Peter the Great or Catherine the Great had been in charge during the late 19th and first decade of the 20th century, regardless of how nasty the regime was to the agricultural classes (and the regime had been nasty to them for centuries, even when the Muscovite princes ran the country for the Tatars). The revolution happened because the last Romanovs were, quite simply, halfwits. Inbred halfwits... Czar Nicholas was King George and Kaiser Wilhelm II's cousin... The Hapsburg's/Hohenzollern's are all inbred... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 Inbred halfwits... Czar Nicholas was King George and Kaiser Wilhelm II's cousin... The Hapsburg's/Hohenzollern's are all inbred... And yet neither George V or Wilhelm II were nearly as inept, or more to the point, George V was not in a constitutional position to do the kind of damage that Nicholas II, and Wilhelm II still had some pretty bright ministers and the potent Prussian Army at his disposal. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.